Rand Paul goes to Howard

posted at 9:31 pm on April 10, 2013 by Mary Katharine Ham

Today, a Republican senator gave a speech at historically black college, Howard University.

There will be many who scoff at Sen. Rand Paul, directing their Nelson Muntz laughs at the freshman from Kentucky. What did he think? These young, black voters were going to start voting Republican?! Tee hee, look at the silly man. But you don’t finish a long journey by letting people mock you out of taking the first step.

That’s what Paul did today. It wasn’t perfect. It likely didn’t turn a lot of voters. But it gave a young, minority audience mostly ideologically hostile to the idea of libertarianism a new face to put on right-of-center ideas. A man who came to them and answered their questions.

Paul is one of the best-suited members of the new Republican guard for this task for a couple of reasons. He’s very smart, articulates his philosophy well (even under duress and for hours on end), and his libertarian leanings give him some cred on several issues important to the community he was addressing. Skepticism about the drug war, mandatory minimum sentencing, and the infallibility of law enforcement is not something such audiences often see from even Democratic senators. Paul was able to bring a bit of that to the table in a genuine way, without pandering. As Mike Riggs notes, it was his first applause line of the day, after a bit of an overwrought protest revealed exactly what Republicans are up against in the perception department.

At Sen. Rand Paul’s speech to Howard University students Wednesday, the first round of applause went to the two student protesters who stood in front of the stage and unfurled a banner that read, “Howard University Does Not Support White Supremacy.” The first round of applause for Paul came 10 minutes or so into his prepared remarks, when the junior senator from Kentucky said, “We should not have laws that ruin the lives of young men and women who have committed no violence. That’s why I have introduced a bill to repeal federal mandatory minimum sentences.” Finally: clapping!

The line revealed a neat overlap between civil libertarians and Howard’s Democrat-leaning African American student body.

Paul admitted that Republicans had failed to highlight the importance of their rich heritage of supporting civil rights, which was part of the reason he decided to give a speech.

Paul created a stir when he asked the students if they were aware that the NAACP was founded by Republicans – a line that the crowd apparently perceived as insulting.

The audience also laughed when Paul forgot the name of Edward Brooke when he tried to cite the black Massachusetts senator who was a graduate of Howard University.

Paul admitted that people told him he was either “brave or crazy” for speaking at a historically black college, especially after the controversial comments he made about the Civil Rights Act during an MSNBC interview with Rachel Maddow in 2010.

“Here I am a guy who once presumed to discuss a section of the Civil Rights Act,” Paul said, admitting that “it didn’t go so well.”

The audience, however, had this event in mind, as a student accused Paul during the Q-and-A session of believing in the federal government’s legal right to discriminate against individuals.

“I’ve never been against the Civil Rights Act,” Paul stated flatly in response. “Ever.”

After the audience was silent in response, the host of the event encouraged Paul to explain his position further, reminding him that “this was on tape.”

Paul responded that he was only concerned about certain portions of the Civil Rights Act that were beyond race.

His attempt to explain earned him a little bit of applause from the audience but it perhaps he should have been more prepared to address the topic.

Next time out, Paul will know to couch the civil rights issue in a different way. Even if right on facts, Republicans should be very careful about talking about the civil rights movement in a way that seems presumptuous, adopting long-past events as proof of their own dedication. When you’re introducing an idea that doesn’t jibe with what your audience has heard for decades, and is this emotional, it’s best to introduce it delicately.

One of my Twitter follows, Vision365, put it well in a conversation with one of his followers. He’s a black conservative in Atlanta, and obviously interested in reaching other black voters:

But this is how politicians work out matters of tone and appealing to different audiences. They have to try. Learning to talk to new audiences takes practice.

And, Paul’s outing isn’t just important as outreach to minority voters. It’s important as a model for outreach to an entire generation of voters under 30, a greater proportion of which are minorities than in any other age group. Increasingly, the path to young voters is through minority communities. Kristen Soltis, a right-leaning pollster who studies young voters:

While 77% of voters overall in 2004 were white, only 68% of voters under age 30 were white. By 2008, that number was only 62%. Both African-Americans and Hispanics were found in higher proportions among young voters. In 2004, African-Americans made up 15% of young voters while making up 11% of voters overall; 13% of voters 18-29 were Hispanic compared to 8% of voters overall. By 2008 those numbers had increased, with African-Americans comprising 18% of voters 18-29 and with Hispanics comprising 14%.

Sope Aluko, a sophomore from Maryland, said, “I thought it was really interesting that he was trying to appeal to us.”

“Maybe he didn’t really tell us anything new,” Aluko said, noting that she was “taken aback” when Paul asked the audience if they knew that the NAACP was founded by Republicans (the question was met with a resounding “Yes!”).

But Aluko said she liked what Paul had to say about keeping first time drug offenders out of prison.

“I feel a little bit better about him now,” said Tasia Hawkins, a freshman from New York. “It was cute that he tried to research and show that he knows black history.”

Hawkins is “indifferent” toward Paul, she said, but added that she appreciates that he tried to clarify his stance on the Civil Rights Act.

“It says something, that he was able to come to Howard,” Hawkins said. She still doesn’t plan to vote Republican any time soon.

One student, political science major Shakei Haynes, said he was convinced enough by Paul’s speech that he would consider voting for him. Haynes voted for Obama in the last two presidential elections.

“I think he did a fantastic job relating to us,” Haynes said. “I think he brought a message that was very informative.”

And, finally, Paul runs into a questioner who doesn’t want a government to leave him alone, “but a government that’s going to help me.” There are plenty of people my age of this mindset, and simply repeating “get government out of the way” is not the way to win them over. It doesn’t connect with their everyday lives or their perception of government. Realizing that is the first step to changing the message into one that can work.

Republican candidates have too often made the mistake—implicitly and explicitly, as with the 47-percent video— of sending the message that they’ve written off large chunks of voters. That voters who may see government as a helpful force in some areas of their lives are somehow irredeemable or disqualified as Republican voters. Paul said the opposite today, with his characteristic low-key demeanor. One late night on the Senate floor, Paul inspired fellow members of the new Republican guard, and even some of the party’s veterans, to venture into bolder, new uncharted territory. Here’s hoping he did it again today.

But you don’t finish a long journey by letting people mock you out of taking the first step.

Well said.

the first round of applause went to the two student protesters who stood in front of the stage and unfurled a banner that read, “Howard University Does Not Support White Supremacy.” The first round of applause for Paul came 10 minutes or so into his prepared remarks, when the junior senator from Kentucky said, “We should not have laws that ruin the lives of young men and women who have committed no violence. That’s why I have introduced a bill to repeal federal mandatory minimum sentences.”

This was DEFINITELY the wrong place to start. College kids??? Most of them with NO work experience?? Try starting with Black Chambers of Commerce, explaining to them how Obamacare was going to TOTALLY screw up their companies. How the Democrats will be draining dollars out of THEIR pockets.

This was DEFINITELY the wrong place to start. College kids??? Most of them with NO work experience?? Try starting with Black Chambers of Commerce, explaining to them how Obamacare was going to TOTALLY screw up their companies. How the Democrats will be draining dollars out of THEIR pockets.

michaelo on April 10, 2013 at 9:42 PM

Maybe you could see if you could be invited to speak. Sounds like you’d have a lot of uplifting and encouraging things to say.

He should have opened a giant sack and started tossing out I-phones to the crowd, that’s been a winning tactic for the People Party.

Then, after everyone has had a chance to admire their new trinket, tell them to turn to the person on their left and demand $200 to pay for the phone because such things aren’t created out of thin air.

history narrative is an all day fail. Until Southern strategy, Willie Horton, & ’08 explanation @vision365 @fatbaldbearded @j_arthur_bloom

— hcole (@hencole) April 11, 2013

What ‘Southern Strategy’?

Nixon didn’t win the South in 1968. He split it with Wallace. Nixon won the South in 1972, but he also won every state in the Union save Massachusetts…and the District of Columbia.

Instead of blaming some phantom ‘Southern Strategy’ for losses, maybe, people should look at who the next two Democrat candidates were for POTUS were in 1968: Humphrey and McGovern.

The South was/is CONSERVATIVE. It was never going to vote for Liberal peaceniks.

Jimmy Carter won the ENTIRE South in 1976 a mere EIGHT YEARS after Nixon had supposedly crafted the Southern Strategy that was going to steal the region from the Democrats f-o-r-e-v-e-r. Sure, Carter lost the South in 1980, but he also lost 44 out of 50 states…not just the South.

Yes, Mondale and Dukakis lost the South, but Mondale lost every state except Minnesota – his home state – and he only won there by a mere 3,761 votes and Dukakis only won 10 states and the District of Columbia. In other words, it wasn’t just the South that voted against two liberals.

Clinton won Louisiana, Georgia, Arkansas, Tennessee, West Virginia, and Kentucky in 1992. He won all of those except Georgia, which he swapped for Florida, in 1996.

Since the 1960s, there have been more Democrat governors in the South than Republicans and more Democratic legislatures. As I said, the South is CONSERVATIVE. It is not LIBERAL. It voted for CONSERVATIVE Democrats. It was never going to support Northern Liberals like Mario Cuomo, Ted Kennedy, Michael Dukakis, Barack Obama, etc. It has nothing to do with race. It has everything to do with philosophy.

Congressman Tim Scott beat Strom Thurmond’s son, a white guy, and became the first black Republican Representative from South Carolina in 114 years…and he beat the Democrat by a margin of 65 to 29 percent. There’s only one word to describe that kind of beating: B-R-U-T-A-L.

How bad of a beating was it? Consider this: Alvin Greene lost to Senator Jim DeMint by a margin of 63% to 28%.

The black Tim Scott beat the white Democrat by a larger margin than the white Senator, Jim DeMint, beat the black Alvin Greene.

He was elected on his character not the colour of his skin. He won because he is a Conservative.

Anyone, who believes that the South would’ve voted for Humphrey, McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, Kerry, Obama, Hillary Clinton, Cuomo, etc., but for that nasty ‘Southern Strategy’ has lost her ever-loving mind.

“I am 100% in favor of the principle enshrined by this part of the law that forbids the government from compelling private businesses to take only certain customers simply because of their race. Such an imposition violates our fundamental right to free enterprise, and these kinds of Jim Crow laws illustrate the danger of overreaching government, not just to Black people but to all Americans!”

That’s what happens when you’ve been talking to RINOS most of the day:-)

Actually, I don’t like to hear negative comments against anyone when they have not been earned. Especially when there are plenty of others that deserve that and more. Fair play and that sort of thing…:-)

These are the things Republicans need to do and do it often. Forget the whole hey lets vote like democrats to get us through to the next election so we won’t have to deal with these issues anymore. Dumb dumb dumb! Those issues aren’t going away even when you vote on them like a democrat.

What a complete waste of time. I’m all for reaching out, but trying to convince students at Howard University to even think about voting for Republicans is like trying to convince guests at Jonestown that something is wrong with the koolaid. One group is just as big of a cult as the other.

Sad fact is that minorities are clients of the Democratic Party. Its a relationship as old as the Roman Empire at least. Its nothing new. Democrats bring home the bacon and offer the minorities dependency, and they take the deal. You can’t out-client the Democrats in their own game. As long as Paul does not pander to them, its fine. No Republican should grovel or be apologetic for his stances in front of minorities. But it’s fine to be friendly and let them know what you believe.

Sad fact is that minorities are clients of the Democratic Party. Its a relationship as old as the Roman Empire at least. Its nothing new. Democrats bring home the bacon and offer the minorities dependency, and they take the deal. You can’t out-client the Democrats in their own game. As long as Paul does not pander to them, its fine. No Republican should grovel or be apologetic for his stances in front of minorities. But it’s fine to be friendly and let them know what you believe.

“I feel a little bit better about him now,” said Tasia Hawkins, a freshman from New York. “It was cute that he tried to research and show that he knows black history.”

I can bet heavily that Paul knows black history way better than Howard’s populace. Hell, I can bet heavily I know black history better than they do, otherwise they’d never vote liberal to begin with. And they pay for this “education”? Wow… The “I vote for free chit” crowd never seizes to amaze.

Next time out, Paul will know to couch the civil rights issue in a different way. Even if right on facts, Republicans should be very careful about talking about the civil rights movement in a way that seems presumptuous, adopting long-past events as proof of their own dedication. When you’re introducing an idea that doesn’t jibe with what your audience has heard for decades, and is this emotional, it’s best to introduce it delicately.

-MKH

Oh, give me a break. I am sick of coddling people like this. They need to be called out for their obsession with race, end of story.

The students at this college sound like a bunch of brats who are wallowing in their perceived victimhood.

Remember why. Howard University was founded in 1866 — by Republicans.
unclesmrgol on April 11, 2013 at 12:49 AM

Ok, maybe they aren’t all brats there. Here’s the thing: there just shouldn’t be schools centered around unimportant characteristics like skin color. To do so is racist and disgusting, as far as I’m concerned. I’m sure there are many lovely people who study there, though.

As for Berkeley, yes, there are many loudmouth, left-leaning undergrads who will try to shout down opposing views, but that certainly isn’t representative of the greater student body. If you want to stereotype Berkeley undergrads these days, you would have to say that they are normally first gen high-achieving Asian-American students from Calif high schools, with electrical engineering, computer science and bio among their most popular majors. The end of affirmative action there opened the floodgates to them. Of these, most are probably left-leaning, but probably no more than any other campus. Berkeley students today are NOT the same as those xfrom he 60’s. There will always by the “ethnic studies” majors and the “sociology” grad students walking around with their little messenger bags and acting all hipsterish like a bunch of whiny idiot slobs, but you get that anywhere.

I hope that if we have a president like Rand Paul many minorities may take a fresh look at freedom and liberty and walk away from the ruling class’ neo-plantation, preferably forever.
FloatingRock on April 11, 2013 at 4:20 AM

I don’t want a president who tailors his speeches and appeals to particular ethnic groups. I want a president who will loudly reject that sort of thing. We need to deemphasize the importance of skin color and treat everyone as individuals.

If I were to make a speech at Howard University, I would say this: “Listen up. You all better get over your skin color and quit with the never-ending victim mentality. I don’t care what skin color anyone is. Every skin color should be treated exactly the same. We need to stop grouping ourselves by ethnicity. We have a common culture. That is American culture. No more segregation. No more of this multiculturalism garbage. If any of you don’t like it, then you are free to get the hell out. We should all be judged solely on the content of our character and on our accomplishments and on the way we treat others, not by the color of our skin. I propose ending all tax payer supported affirmative action practices. I am not kissing up to anyone just because they have a particular skin color. You all better learn that and learn that quick.”

I don’t want a president who tailors his speeches and appeals to particular ethnic groups. I want a president who will loudly reject that sort of thing. We need to deemphasize the importance of skin color and treat everyone as individuals.

bluegill on April 11, 2013 at 4:38 AM

I agree with most of your argument against pandering for votes the GOP establishment way, except what is your evidence that Rand Paul “tailored his speech”, or more importantly, his principles in this case? I’m pretty familiar with Rand Paul and watched the speech and he has been very consistent. All he did was the evangelize freedom and liberty at a new venue and spread the good word.

As long as Paul does not pander to them, its fine. No Republican should grovel or be apologetic for his stances in front of minorities.

flawedskull on April 10, 2013 at 11:30 PM

Agreed.

bluegill on April 11, 2013 at 4:38 AM

You make some good points but your last post would have gotten him nowhere. You have to know your audience and how much they can handle. They’re not ready to handle the hard truth yet. The most difficult thing to do is to get someone who has been conditioned otherwise to change their minds. They didn’t get there overnight; they’re not going to change overnight.

The question for me as per Rand Paul’s speech at Howard is, is it too little, too late?

I actually haven’t read the whole speech yet. I’m sure I’d agree with it. I like Rand. I wasn’t commenting so much on Rand as I was mostly just speaking in idealistic terms about what my dream choice would do. I agree that my little offered speech would have been a flop, but it’s what I wish could be said. If candidates can’t quite go that far or be so blunt, then I wish they’d at least hit on themes related to deemphasizing race/skin color/ethnicity more often and emphasizing our common culture. I’ll take anything at this point.

Someone needs to challenge the “what will candidate A do for blacks/Latinos/gays/women?” way of framing issues. I think people would be receptive to someone who forcefully rejects identity politics.

I don’t want to hear another effing word about Willie Horton unless it’s about how Al Gore brought it up to try and defeat Dukakis first. Also, if mentioning that a wrongly furloughed dangerous criminal killed someone is wrong just because said criminal is black, then it’s time to start your voodoo spell for the SMOD because humanity isn’t worth saving.

Rand Paul had the courage to reach out to a group that has been ignored by Republicans and taken for granted by Democrats. He may not have won a bunch of new votes, but if you think it doesnt make a difference that he went, you are dead wrong.

The first step to changing the lazy media narrative of Republican racism is sincere engagement. We need to build an honest relationship with groups, like the Howard College students. Familiarity breeds trust and i think conservatives would go a long way to winning more minority votes if they developed a relationship with them while they are young.

This was exactly the right thing for Rand Paul to do. He gets creds for it with the youth movement in general which, if one pays attention, doesn’t see race like our grandparents did.

I applaud Rand Paul for going into the “lion’s den” and applaud the students as well for mostly being respectful.

I thought the posting above is interesting in its stating of increased youth populations amongst black and Hispanics. Result of
welfare?, increased number of black middleclass families?, illegal immigration?….etc.? Did legal immigration take a part in this?
I know this was all orchestrated to reduce the white majority in the country, however, am curious to know the “how’s”.

On my reading of this, it’s just another reminder that breath IS wasted on 47% (actually 51% per the last election.) The reaction of this audience just underscores the futility of trying to persuade this sector of the voting population that freedom, liberty, and capitalism is preferable to big government, broken families, drugs, violence, rotten public education, and dependency. That’s what the Democratic party stands for, and blacks have clearly, RESOUNDINGLY expressed a preference for this (or 95% have anyway.)

The list of Republicans who’ve had the “courage” to speak directly to black audiences is longer than I’d care to recount here. It’s always the same. Over and over again. Invitation to speak. Followed by boos. Followed by polite silence. Followed by tepid applause. Followed by block voting Democrat.

My opinion is that it’s better to take the option away and make blacks come back to the GOP. State what I just stated above. And write ’em off. What are they going to do? Go from 96 to 97%? Leave blacks to the mercy of white liberals and let them come to their own conclusions.

The GOP has nothing to apologize for. We’d gain our self-respect back if we’d just stop. And we might actually earn a little respect from the black community in the process.